AOC vs Trump

[ImmortalFlame]

Odd....I never said it....I don't think that....yet you're certain of it.
Someone with lower standards might say something uncivil to you.

I just explained it. Stop feigning surprise when you are confronted by a reasonable objection to your unreasonable position.

Do you not believe in calling out or challenging racism?

 

[Revoltingest]

I just explained it. Stop feigning surprise when you are confronted by a reasonable objection to your unreasonable position.

Do you not believe in calling out or challenging racism?

I believe that you don't understand what I was discussing with another.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe that you don't understand what I was discussing with another.

Please don't try to avoid admitting your own words.

I asked:

"What is uncivil about calling someone who you genuinely believe is a racist a racist?
What is uncivil about pointing out and challenging racism?"

You responded:

"It would be like telling a stupid poster that they're "stupid"."

So, you are equating calling someone with a mental impairment a derisory term to calling out and acknowledging racism.

If this is not you position, then clarify.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please don't try to avoid admitting your own words.

Are you just trying to build my post count?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you just trying to build my post count?

No, I'm trying to get you to engage in actual debate rather than obfuscation.

Do you believe it is wrong or uncivil to challenge or point out racism?

 

[Revoltingest]

...I'm trying to get you to engage in actual debate rather than obfuscation.

Then be interesting.
I require that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then be interesting.
I require that.

I'm beginning to record your standard behaviour when challenged:

1) Make statement.
2) Be unable to defend statement.
3) Avoid answering questions.
4) Mention post counts for some reason.
5) Feign disinterest.
6) VICTORY!

I call it "The REVOLTINGEST system". I'd come up with an acronym, but c'mon...

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm beginning to graph your behaviour when challenged:

1) Make statement.
2) Be unable to defend statement.
3) Avoid answering questions.
4) Mention post counts for some reason.
5) Feign disinterest.
6) VICTORY!

I call it "The REVOLTINGEST system".

This is fun!
But I get to play too.
Your system....
1) Fall in love with AOC.
2) Attack anyone who offers her constructive criticism.
3) Defend incivility.
4) Use deflection.
5) Claim victory.
6) Weep a little.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is fun!
But I get to play too.
Your system....
1) Fall in love with AOC.

Nope.

2) Attack anyone who offers her constructive criticism.

You called her intellectually challenged.

3) Defend incivility.

Nothing uncivil about calling out racism.

4) Use deflection.

Never did that either.

5) Claim victory.

No claim made, but thankyou for tacitly admitting it.

6) Weep a little.

Only for loss of respect for you.

Poor Revoltingest, you could be so much more.

 

[Revoltingest]

....loss of respect for you.

I once had it?
Woo hoo!

 

[Stevicus]

That's very true. My political opinions are more a result of my interactions with people on internet forums since I started posting in 2008. Prior to that, I had no political views, and was entirely ignorant of politics.

The posters who had the largest impact on my political learnings are Ridgerunner, Pnewton, Jhark Carnelian, and a number of other liberal posters who always seem to have wanted to silence me from asking questions.

I don't know who any of these people are, but one can find plenty of political shills on the internet - from both sides of the spectrum.

...My all-time biggest question still remains -- Does the Democratic party have long term goals, or do they simply blow with the wind? Nobody has ever answered this, and the lack of willingness to answer this and other logical detailed questions have led me down the road of conservativism.

Thing is, the Democrats have shifted towards conservatism these past few decades. They're no longer the party of FDR, JFK, or even Jimmy Carter. They're no longer the party of the working man, as they used to be. Instead, they sold out to big business and Wall Street.

At this point, neither party has demonstrated any kind of long-term goals. Their only goal at this point appears to be to hope that their lip service holds long enough to make it to the next election - as well as make money for their cronies.

Case in point, the link that @Revoltingest just shared, proves that many Democrats simply blow with the wind and are oblivious to all potential outcomes, and likely don't care or even take time to think about it.

I consider that sheer stupidity, and accusing them of wanting to flush America down the toilet is actually a compliment to their intelligence.

Ultimately, AOC supporters must represent a combination of both idiots, and people who desire to flush America down the toilet.

I'm not sure which party wants to flush America down the toilet; perhaps both, perhaps neither. A lot of it depends on how one defines America - its role in the world and our goals/objectives as a nation.

As a nation, our philosophy and national aspirations have shifted somewhat since the time of the Founders.

However, both parties nowadays appear to view America more as an abstraction and a symbolic entity, rather than as an actual physical place where people live and have human needs.

Conservatives seem to view America as some kind of insurance society where the primary goal is the protection of capitalist investments (both here and abroad), and because of this, they see America as some kind of "shining city on a hill" (as Reagan once put it).

Liberals, on the other hand, might tend to agree with the "shining city on a hill" idea (or they might also quote Emma Lazarus' "The New Colossus"), but they see America's wealth and greatness as carrying an obligation to be more charitable and generous to the less fortunate (both here and abroad).

I don't know that they actually want to flush America down the toilet.

I suppose anything is possible, but it's also possible that liberals might believe that America has more than enough excess wealth to be able to accommodate more generous welfare, housing, and healthcare programs for the less fortunate.

By their opposition to such programs, conservatives are implying that America can't afford to be generous, which would indicate that the overall economy has been doing poorly and is in much worse shape since the days of LBJ's Great Society.

So, there's a certain contradiction in painting America as a "shining city on the hill" and proclaiming our exceptional greatness, while at the same time pleading poverty when it comes to buying another test tube for the school science lab.

So many Americans love to bask in their wealth and greatness, yet react with such sharp and strident indignancy and offense when Oliver Twist dares to ask for more gruel.

It's these kind of mixed messages and conflicted attitudes which bring America closer to that toilet bowl you mentioned.

I'll admit liberals really haven't been much better, although I think they'd be more likely to give poor Oliver another helping of gruel. But their trouble is they don't bother examining the social system in such a way as to come up with any answers as to how it turns out that a few people eat like kings while these poor kids have to subsist on gruel. They don't really think about these things, and that's the main trouble with liberals these days.

 

[Shad]

I wonder if AOC is a Poe?
Sometimes it seems that her job is to present a picture of
Democrats designed to make Trump look sane in comparison.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes full welfare benefits for all immigrants, regardless of legal status, after Trump visa ban
What AOC's National Rent Control Proposal Would Do - CityLab

No she is just dumb.

 

[Shad]

Some of her ideas are silly but I support her voicing them not because I necessarily agree but because a wide-ranging debate is a good thing to have.

AOC avoid debates of her ideas letting other people do the heavy lifting.

 

[metis]

No she is just dumb.

 

[Revoltingest]

No she is just dumb.

Looking at her education, it appears that she's intelligent.
But I say that her minimal experience limits her abilities.

 

[sealchan]

Still, Trump has set the dung standard in politics. We teach our children not to talk like this, and yet now we have a president whereas Proctor & Gamble hasn't even made enough soap to wash his mouth out with.

You cant blame Democrats when the Republican primary for 2016 had so many decent folks...yet they choose Trump.

 

[Shad]

Looking at her education, it appears that she's intelligent.

Rote learning.

But I say that her minimal experience limits her abilities.

She has made major blunders which had nothing to do with experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rote learning.

She has made major blunders which had nothing to do with experience.

I agree, but instead of attributing it to lack of intelligence,
I chalk it up to inexperience & fervent idealism.

 

[metis]

You cant blame Democrats when the Republican primary for 2016 had so many decent folks...yet they choose Trump.

Exactly, and one result of this is proof that even we Americans can elect a leader of the country with autocratic intentions. Notice how he made the decision to pull our troops out of Syria without even consulting Congress, the DoD and the State Department. He essentially wants to run the country as he did his own businesses and "The Apprentice".

 

[Shad]

I agree, but instead of attributing it to lack of intelligence,
I chalk it up to inexperience & fervent idealism.

Her blunders are more than lack of experience when she can not figure out the difference between a tax cut and public funding as per her Amazon blunder.